Aston Villa: what has changed

We checked every step of the engine against the squad cost rules, clause by clause, and corrected everything public information allows in one release. Contracts signed since December 2023 for more than five years are now capped at five years even for players already on the books, Villa's Super Cup money counts, and the figures for later tests are worked out window by window and restored. Five estimates move, none by more than 0.6 of a point.

• The five-year cap: a contract signed or extended since 12 December 2023 for more than five years is now spread over five years for players who were already on the club's books, as the rule says, not over its full length (Chelsea, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Manchester United).
• The UEFA Super Cup: Aston Villa's €4m for playing the 2026 Super Cup now counts, as the rule says once the amount is known.
• Sunderland: their FA Cup home tie against Stoke City in January 2025 is now evidenced, so they are credited with two home cup matches, not one.
• Figures for later tests: the figures withdrawn earlier on 23 October are worked out window by window and restored.
• What the engine cannot capture from public information is now listed once, with its direction and size, on its own page.
• Every figure an article prints from the engine is now registered and recomputed at each release. The new check found figures in eight more articles that earlier corrections had not carried through; each is corrected, with a note.
• Regulation part 5, which gives each club's distance from a ratio of 60%, is restated on the corrected figures.

What moved: Chelsea 88.6% → 89.1%; Manchester City 73.1% → 73.7%; Aston Villa 74.4% → 74.2%; Manchester United 56.8% → 56.9%; Sunderland 60.8% → 60.6%

Also moved:ChelseaManchester CityManchester UnitedSunderland

We had averaged each club's profit on player sales over three financial years, but the rule averages the sales made in the six most recent transfer windows, which for the March 2027 test start in February 2024. Sales between February and June 2024 now count, among them several made before the June 2024 deadline of the previous rules, and ten estimates move: Chelsea's to 88.6%, from 92.5%, and Newcastle's to 81.3%, from 84.9%, the largest.

• The period the rule averages: the profit or loss on player sales over the six most recent transfer windows, divided by three, not over three financial years. For the March 2027 test the period starts on 2 February 2024, so sales from then until each club's 2024/25 year began now count.
• Brentford: David Raya's sale to Arsenal, which Brentford booked in June 2024, now counts, and Mark Flekken's sale to Bayer Leverkusen in June 2025 is no longer counted twice.
• Figures for later tests: where an article gives a club's figure for a later year, it is now worked out window by window; where we have not yet done that, the figure is withdrawn while we recheck it.

What moved: Chelsea 92.5% → 88.6%; Newcastle 84.9% → 81.3%; Aston Villa 77.4% → 74.4%; Nottingham Forest 99.3% → 97.6%; Brentford 83.8% → 82.3%; Everton 73.3% → 72.3%; Manchester City 73.8% → 73.1%; Tottenham 80.4% → 80.9%; Leeds 68.6% → 68.3%; Manchester United 56.9% → 56.8%

Also moved:ChelseaNewcastleNottingham ForestBrentfordEvertonManchester CityTottenhamLeedsManchester United

Players a club has loaned out are now recorded at all twenty clubs, with an allowance for the part of their wages the borrowing club pays. Where a named source says how much the borrower pays, the saving counts in our central figure; where nobody says, it only widens the range. Four central figures move, the largest Nottingham Forest's, from 102.3% to 99.3%.

• A club that loans a player out often stops paying some or all of his wages, which lowers the squad cost the rule counts. We had recorded loans out at some clubs and not at others. Every club's squad is now checked against its own website and the League's registration return, and every player out on loan in 2026/27 is recorded with the loan.
• Wages are not published, so each loaned player carries an estimated salary range based on what the club paid for him. How much of it the borrowing club pays is stated for only a few players. Where a named outlet reports the split, we count the saving in the central figure. Where nobody states it, we no longer assume a half share: the saving can be anything from nothing to the whole wage, so it widens the range and leaves the central figure where it was.
• The same treatment applies to last season's loans, which lowered the wages in the accounts we start from. Where a player is back, or was counted out of the wage bill at his full salary, we add his saving back; where the split is not stated, that too goes into the range.
• Nottingham Forest's central figure falls from 102.3% to 99.3%. Omari Hutchinson's wages at AC Milan are reported to be paid in full by Milan, which takes off 1.7 points. Gustavo Sá was sold to Olympiacos on 30 July 2026, and we had still counted him in the squad. No fee has been published, so we record the sale at what Forest paid for him, as an estimate; that takes off 1.2 points. Forest are still above 85%.
• Manchester United's figure moves from 57.3% to 56.9%, Arsenal's from 59.9% to 60.1% and Liverpool's from 72.9% to 72.7%, on reported or relayed wage splits.
• At nine other clubs only the range moves. Because the possible saving on this season's loans is larger than the possible add-back for last season's, the bottom of each range falls further than the top: Chelsea's range is now 83.0% to 97.2%, Brighton's 70.7% to 82.1%.
• Tottenham's saving on this season's loans is held out for now, because the club's own wage figures already include part of it. Newcastle's is held out because last season's loans could not be checked against a source we accept.

What moved: Nottingham Forest 102.3% → 99.3% (range 90.5 to 102.0%); Manchester United 57.3% → 56.9%; Arsenal 59.9% → 60.1%; Liverpool 72.9% → 72.7%; ranges only: Chelsea, Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, Manchester City, Everton, Tottenham; league 75.8% → 75.6%

Also moved:Nottingham ForestManchester UnitedArsenalLiverpoolChelseaBrightonBrentfordBournemouthCrystal PalaceManchester CityEvertonTottenham

Last season's commercial revenue is not in any club's filed accounts yet, so we estimate it. Until now each estimate was a judgement of ours. From this release every club's estimate is made by one published method, fitted on 81 filed year-on-year changes, with an assumption range sized from how far such forecasts have missed in the past. Seventeen estimates move. No club changes side of a threshold.

• The rule counts a club's commercial revenue for last season, 2025/26. Those accounts are filed between late 2026 and spring 2027, so for 19 clubs the figure is an estimate. We had built each one by hand, from the last filed figure and our own view of the club's season, and gave each a margin of 7% either way.
• The new method starts from the club's last filed commercial revenue and grows it by a rate that depends only on the size of that revenue: larger commercial businesses have grown more slowly in percentage terms. The rate is 19.3% for a club starting from £20m and 6.8% for one starting from £350m. It is fitted on 81 changes taken from filed accounts, every figure read on the page.
• We chose the method on one test only: how well it would have forecast commercial revenue in past seasons. It was compared with assuming no growth and with a rule that also used each club's own last change. We did not look at what any method did to a club's squad cost ratio, or at which side of 85% it left a club.
• The margin of 7% either way was too narrow. Past forecasts of this kind have missed by more, and by more for small clubs than for large ones. The new assumption range is sized from those misses and is wider on the upper side for smaller clubs. Most clubs' published ranges are wider as a result.
• Four clubs' assumption ranges now span the 85% line: Bournemouth (central figure 85.5%, range 79.5 to 87.8%), Brentford (83.8%, 79.5 to 87.5%), Newcastle (84.7%, 78.9 to 88.6%) and Tottenham (80.4%, 76.4 to 85.6%). For these the estimate does not reliably tell which side of the line the club is on.
• Sunderland and Ipswich Town changed division, where the size rule does not apply. Sunderland's estimate is the typical change of nine promoted clubs and Ipswich's the typical change of six relegated clubs. Both are provisional until their accounts are filed. Coventry City's and Hull City's ratios do not move: the rule counts its £15m minimum for both, and their own commercial revenue is below it. Our estimate of that revenue does change: it is now each club's last filed figure with no growth assumed, provisional until their accounts are filed.
• Manchester United does not move: its 2025/26 figure is filed. Leeds now has the cost of its merchandise taken off, as the rule requires and as at every other club; that cost is estimated, not filed.
• Two figures measured before player trading now sit a fraction of a percentage point from a line: Manchester City 84.9%, from 87.1%, which is 0.1 percentage points below 85%, and Chelsea 114.4%, from 115.5%, which is 0.6 percentage points below 115%. Both margins are smaller than the uncertainty in the commercial estimate, so the estimate does not reliably tell which side of either line the club is on before player trading. No published ratio changes side of a threshold.
• We have withdrawn our estimate of what the five-year amortisation cap would add at Chelsea if it reached the eight registrations signed before it. Two ways of calculating it give different answers, and we will publish neither until they are reconciled.
• From this release we write movements and margins of a ratio in percentage points and sporting deductions in league points, so the two are never confused.
• The forecasts of record are frozen and scored as frozen. The forecasts we published before this release stand in the track record as published and will be scored against the 2025/26 accounts as they were. The estimates of this release are held in its own timestamped record and will be compared with the accounts when they are filed.

What moved: Arsenal 59.5% → 59.9%; Bournemouth 85.5% → 85.5% (range 79.5 to 87.8%); Brentford 84.2% → 83.8%; Brighton 79.5% → 79.1%; Chelsea 93.2% → 92.5%; Everton 73.3% → 73.4%; Nottingham Forest 103.4% → 102.3%; Fulham 104.0% → 102.7%; Ipswich Town 95.8% → 97.1%; Leeds 67.4% → 68.6%; Liverpool 74.0% → 72.9%; Manchester City 75.4% → 73.8%; Newcastle 83.9% → 84.7%; Crystal Palace 78.9% → 78.1%; Sunderland 63.4% → 60.8%; Tottenham 82.3% → 80.4%; Aston Villa 76.0% → 77.4%

Also moved:ArsenalBournemouthBrentfordBrightonChelseaEvertonNottingham ForestFulhamIpswich TownLeedsLiverpoolManchester CityNewcastleCrystal PalaceSunderlandTottenham

We now measure every contract from the day a player was registered to the day the contract ends. A player who signs in August on a "five-year deal" has a contract of four years and ten months, because contracts end on 30 June. We had spread his cost over five full years, which made each year's charge a little too small. On that change every club's ratio rises, by 0.1 to 0.9 points. Five clubs also move because we now read the accounts of the group the rule describes, not the club company alone. No club's central figure crosses a threshold.

• The cost of signing a player is spread over the length of his contract. We had used the length as announced, in whole years. We now use the time between the registration date and the contract's end date.
• 504 contract lengths changed. For 190 of them a source states the end date. For the other 314 we have derived it as the 30 June that the announced length points to, which is when contracts in English football end, and we mark those dates as derived until we have a source for each.
• No length changed by as much as half a year. The effect is a few weeks per player, added up across each squad.
• Bournemouth's central figure moves from 85.2% to 85.5%, in an assumption range of 80.1% to 87.7%. The range still spans the 85% line, so the estimate does not tell which side of the line the club is on.
• Brentford (84.1%) and Tottenham (82.3%) move closer to the line. Neither is above it at the central figure.
• The same rule now applies to the contract a loan with an obligation to buy would create. One published figure moves on it, Fulham's, by 0.1 points.
• The rule tests a club together with its football companies. At Brighton and Sunderland the women's team is a separate company whose revenue the rule counts, so their ratios fall, by 0.3 and 0.2 points. At Ipswich the group's accounts remove a fee the club charges its own parent, so its commercial revenue is lower and its ratio rises by a further 0.9 points.
• Newcastle's group includes the women's team and a fan zone beside the stadium that opened in August 2024. We count the women's team's revenue in full and the fan zone at its profit, which lowers the ratio from 84.7% to 83.9%. This rests on our reading of the rule. The rule counts matchday food and drink in full, and if the League treats the fan zone that way the figure is lower, so the assumption range now runs from 80.7% to 86.0%.
• Manchester City's women's team sits in another company of the same group. We add its ticket and broadcasting income, which lowers the ratio by 0.3 points. We do not add its sponsorship income, because the accounts do not show that it comes from outside the group.
• A women's team's company often receives money from its own club. We count only what comes from outside the group, and nothing extra where the team is already inside the accounts we read.
• For seven clubs the group's accounts cannot yet be applied, because the documents do not print what is needed or, at Manchester United, because the change is large enough to need a release of its own. Their figures are unchanged on this point and each club's article says so.
• A check that used to require whole years for a summer signing now requires each length to agree with its dates. It still refuses the error it was written to catch.
• A new check stops a club's European revenue being switched off by mistake. It compares each club's record with the list of clubs in the league phase of their competition.
• We read every figure we take from the clubs' accounts against its page again. Twelve did not match. None of them is used in the ratio, and all are corrected. One, Nottingham Forest's amortisation for 2023/24, had been quoted in our article and was corrected there on 4 October.

What moved: Arsenal 60.4% → 60.7%; Aston Villa 75.7% → 76.0%; Bournemouth 85.2% → 85.5%; Brentford 83.9% → 84.1%; Brighton 79.7% → 79.5%; Chelsea 94.0% → 94.3%; Coventry 63.5% → 64.1%; Crystal Palace 78.0% → 78.5%; Everton 72.8% → 73.3%; Fulham 106.0% → 106.4%; Hull 66.4% → 67.0%; Ipswich 94.1% → 95.8%; Leeds 67.0% → 67.4%; Liverpool 73.9% → 74.0%; Manchester United 58.8% → 59.0%; Newcastle 84.2% → 83.9%; Nottingham Forest 102.5% → 103.4%; Sunderland 63.2% → 63.4%; Tottenham 82.1% → 82.3%

Also moved:ArsenalBournemouthBrentfordBrightonChelseaCoventry CityCrystal PalaceEvertonFulhamHull CityIpswich TownLeedsLiverpoolManchester CityManchester UnitedNewcastleNottingham ForestSunderlandTottenham

We rebuilt the matchday income that the rule counts for every club. The rule takes last season's gate receipts per home match and multiplies by this season's home matches. We had not counted the matches properly and had not written down how we estimated the receipts. Both are now done: the matches are counted from archived match reports, and the receipts follow a published method. Fourteen clubs' squad cost ratios move, eight down and six up, and no club crosses a threshold.

• Home cup ties. The rule counts the average number of home FA Cup and League Cup matches over three seasons, rounded up. Twelve clubs had too few. Newcastle and Chelsea each played 13 in three seasons, so the rule counts five a season.
• Last season's home matches. The rule divides last season's receipts by every home match played. Eleven clubs' counts were wrong. Newcastle played 31 home matches, not 24; Crystal Palace 28, not 24; Chelsea 26, not 28.
• Last season's receipts. Most clubs have not filed 2025/26 accounts, so the figure is an estimate. For thirteen clubs it now starts from the last filed year, adjusted for the change in cup and European home matches and for 5% growth. Arsenal's earlier figure, raised for a European run that was no longer than the year before, is withdrawn.
• The largest movements are Tottenham, 79.4% to 77.6%, and Newcastle, 77.7% to 79.4%. At Fulham and Brentford the corrections cancel and the figure does not move.
• Manchester United's records take five small corrections to a signing date, two fees and two contract lengths, worth less than a hundredth of a point together.
• Every figure on the site is now rounded once, from the model's exact value. Three printed ranges change by a tenth of a point as a result.
• The method is set out in "How we estimate matchday revenue". A separate review of agents' fees on signings since the last accounts is under way and may raise these figures; we will report its result.

What moved: Tottenham 79.4% → 77.6%; Newcastle 77.7% → 79.4%; Crystal Palace 73.6% → 74.9%; Liverpool 70.6% → 69.6%; Everton 71.7% → 70.7%; Arsenal 55.8% → 56.6%; Chelsea 88.6% → 88.0%; Manchester United 58.7% → 58.1%; Aston Villa 71.9% → 72.5%; Brighton 77.8% → 77.4%; Nottingham Forest 96.7% → 97.0%; Bournemouth 83.0% → 82.8%; Coventry 61.2% → 61.0%; Manchester City 74.1% → 74.2%

Also moved:TottenhamNewcastleCrystal PalaceLiverpoolEvertonArsenalChelseaManchester UnitedBrightonNottingham ForestBournemouthCoventry CityManchester CityFulhamBrentfordLeeds

A further check of the transfer records the previous update could not settle: contract extensions, contract lengths, signing dates and fees, each now taken from the clubs' own announcements or the most reliable reports. Ten published ratios move, by between 0.1 and 0.6 points; no club crosses the 85% or 115% threshold.

• Crystal Palace's ratio rises from 73.0% to 73.6%, mainly because Queens Park Rangers are owed a fifth of Palace's profit on Eberechi Eze, which the figures had counted as Palace's.
• Bournemouth's falls from 83.5% to 83.0%, because Illia Zabarnyi cost more than recorded (27.7m, as Dynamo Kyiv have stated).
• Everton's falls from 72.0% to 71.7%, after Beto's and Iliman Ndiaye's fees and Youssef Chermiti's basic fee were corrected.
• Contract lengths and extensions were corrected where the clubs announced them, moving Leeds to 64.8%, Brighton to 77.8% and Aston Villa to 71.9%; smaller moves follow for Fulham, Arsenal, Manchester City and Sunderland.
• Three records were wrong in kind. A Brentford player recorded as released is still under contract, an Aston Villa player recorded as bought came through the academy, and a Bournemouth signing was dated a year early.
• Where no reliable source exists yet, the figure is kept and the most it could matter is recorded.

What moved: Crystal Palace 73.0% → 73.6%; Bournemouth 83.5% → 83.0%; Everton 72.0% → 71.7%; Leeds 64.5% → 64.8%; Brighton 78.1% → 77.8%; Aston Villa 71.7% → 71.9%; Fulham 102.4% → 102.6%; Arsenal 55.7% → 55.8%; Manchester City 74.2% → 74.1%; Sunderland 61.5% → 61.6%

Also moved:Crystal PalaceBournemouthEvertonLeedsBrightonFulhamArsenalManchester CitySunderland

A further check of the transfer records behind every figure: players recorded as costing nothing, sale fees that included add-ons, contract terms and extensions, and fees a selling club owed to a player's former club. It also corrects the date at which departed players' remaining cost is measured for clubs whose year does not end on 30 June. Thirteen published ratios move, by between 0.1 and 1.0 points; no club crosses the 85% or 115% threshold.

• Aston Villa's ratio rises from 70.8% to 71.7%, because Middlesbrough are owed a fifth of Villa's profit on Morgan Rogers, about £20m, which the figures had counted as Villa's.
• Fees owed to former clubs are now deducted on the largest sales where a reliable report states them, which also raises Newcastle (Bruno Guimarães and Alexander Isak) to 77.7%, Bournemouth (Antoine Semenyo) to 83.5% and, with a sale fee that had been recorded in euros as pounds, Brighton to 78.1%.
• Every player sold for a fee while recorded as costing nothing is now checked; those who were in fact bought are either restored to their cost or listed with the most the gap could matter.
• Sale fees are now the guaranteed fee wherever the clubs or a reliable outlet state it, with add-ons kept separate; Chelsea's ratio rises to 88.6% and Liverpool's to 70.6%, and Crystal Palace's falls to 73.0%.
• Contract terms and extensions were corrected where a reliable source dates them; smaller moves follow for Tottenham, Arsenal, Nottingham Forest, Leeds, Coventry City and Ipswich Town.
• For Arsenal, Liverpool and Coventry, whose accounts end on 31 May, the remaining cost of players who have left is now measured at that date rather than 30 June; Arsenal's ratio falls to 55.7%.
• Where no reliable source exists yet, the figure is kept and the most it could matter is recorded.

What moved: Aston Villa 70.8% → 71.7%; Brighton 77.2% → 78.1%; Newcastle 76.7% → 77.7%; Bournemouth 83.1% → 83.5%; Chelsea 88.4% → 88.6%; Liverpool 70.5% → 70.6%; Crystal Palace 73.1% → 73.0%; Nottingham Forest 96.9% → 96.7%; Tottenham 79.3% → 79.4%; Arsenal 55.8% → 55.7%; Leeds 64.6% → 64.5%; Coventry City 61.3% → 61.2%; Ipswich Town 88.9% → 88.8%

Also moved:BrightonNewcastleBournemouthChelseaLiverpoolCrystal PalaceNottingham ForestTottenhamArsenalLeedsCoventry CityIpswich Town

Several players bought for a fee had been recorded as if they had cost nothing, and some transfers between two clubs in the series were recorded differently by each. Each has been checked against the clubs' announcements and the most reliable reports; six published ratios move, by between 0.1 and 1.3 points.

• Tottenham had recorded eight players it bought, including Brennan Johnson, Cristian Romero and Yves Bissouma, as academy players at no cost, which overstated its profit on their sales; its ratio falls from 80.6% to 79.3%, and from 92.5% to 88.5% before player trading.
• Bournemouth's ratio rises from 82.2% to 83.1%, because Milos Kerkez left before the June 2025 accounts were drawn up and his cost should never have been taken out of the squad's book value.
• Liverpool's ratio falls from 71.2% to 70.5%. Ibrahima Konaté had been recorded at no cost, and the remaining cost of Diogo Jota's registration is now removed from the squad's book value, as the series always intended, without treating it as a sale.
• Aston Villa had recorded Lucas Digne at no cost; its ratio falls from 71.0% to 70.8%.
• Where the selling and buying clubs' records of the same transfer disagreed, both now use the basic fee as stated by the club or the most reliable report, and the completion date the clubs announced; Everton's ratio falls to 72.0% and Crystal Palace's to 73.1%. The Dwight McNeil and Brennan Johnson exchange had no published value, so Crystal Palace's figure could be up to 73.3% and Everton's up to 72.2%.
• Every remaining difference between two clubs' records of a transfer is now listed and checked automatically.
• No club crosses the 85% or 115% threshold.

What moved: Tottenham 80.6% → 79.3%; Bournemouth 82.2% → 83.1%; Liverpool 71.2% → 70.5%; Everton 72.3% → 72.0%; Aston Villa 71.0% → 70.8%; Crystal Palace 73.2% → 73.1%

Also moved:TottenhamBournemouthLiverpoolEvertonCrystal Palace

The tables of past seasons in the Newcastle and Aston Villa articles, and every club's table of player-sale profit by season, are now checked against the filed accounts automatically. No current-season figure changes.

• Each past season's row is now rebuilt from the filed accounts and the FA's published payments to agents for the matching period, and a row that cannot be rebuilt is marked unavailable rather than estimated.
• The check found that Newcastle's and Aston Villa's tables of past seasons do not match the filings, including one amortisation figure that no filing contains.
• Every input to Newcastle's figure now records where it comes from, whether a filed page, a regulator's publication, the club, the press or a modelling assumption, as the first club of twenty.

Also moved:Newcastle

Agents' fees now come from the Football Association's published figures for every club. Thirteen clubs had carried estimates although the FA had published the actual payments in April; with the published figures, thirteen ratios move, by between 0.1 and 2.5 points.

• Nottingham Forest paid agents £12.2m, not the £22m estimated, and its ratio falls by 2.5 points; Bournemouth paid £20.9m, not £15m, and its ratio rises by 1.4 points.
• Manchester City, Tottenham, Arsenal and Everton paid less than estimated and their ratios fall by about a point; Chelsea, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, Fulham, Brighton and Brentford paid more and theirs rise slightly; Liverpool's falls slightly.
• Newcastle and Manchester United now carry the FA's exact figures rather than rounded ones; their published ratios do not change.
• No club crosses the 85% or 115% threshold.
• Any input still waiting for a source now carries the date that source is expected, and the checks fail once it passes.

What moved: Nottingham Forest 99.4% → 96.9%; Bournemouth 80.8% → 82.2%; Manchester City 75.4% → 74.2%; Tottenham 81.7% → 80.6%; Arsenal 56.8% → 55.8%; Everton 73.3% → 72.3%; Chelsea 87.6% → 88.4%; Aston Villa 70.4% → 71.0%; Crystal Palace 72.8% → 73.2%; Fulham 102.0% → 102.4%; Liverpool 71.5% → 71.2%; Brighton 76.9% → 77.2%; Brentford 81.2% → 81.3%

Also moved:Nottingham ForestBournemouthManchester CityTottenhamArsenalEvertonChelseaCrystal PalaceFulhamLiverpoolBrightonBrentford

Every club's turnover, staff costs, profit on player sales and squad book value has been checked line by line against the filed accounts it was taken from. Five clubs had figures that were rounded, estimated or taken from a third party; they now carry the exact filed figures, and two published ratios move.

• Newcastle's staff costs were taken from an analyst's reading of the accounts, £2.2m above the filed £241.3m; with the filed figure its ratio falls from 77.1% to 76.7%.
• Aston Villa's squad book value had been estimated where the accounts give it exactly; with the filed figure its amortisation falls by about £0.5m and its ratio from 70.5% to 70.4%.
• Arsenal, Brighton and Liverpool carried rounded sale profits or book values; the corrections move their ratios by a thousandth of a point or less.
• Three clubs' company numbers pointed to unrelated companies and are corrected; company numbers and filed figures are now checked automatically against the source records.

What moved: Newcastle 77.1% → 76.7%; Aston Villa 70.5% → 70.4%; other figures unchanged at published precision

Also moved:NewcastleArsenalBrightonLiverpool

Aston Villa's wage estimate now starts from the exact staff cost in its filed accounts, £273.4m including social security, instead of a rounded £273.0m. Estimated wages rise by £0.3m and the published ratio is unchanged at 70.5%.

• The filed staff cost is £273.4m (273,376 thousand) and includes £33.8m of employer social security; an earlier note in the model said social security was not included, which was wrong.
• Estimated squad wages rise from £218.8m to £219.1m, and the squad cost before player trading moves from 89.4% to 89.5% of revenue.
• A new check now requires the wage input and the accounts record to carry the same filed staff cost at every club.
• The wage roll-forward comparison published earlier today showed Villa's base at £219.8m; with this correction it is £220.1m, the same as on 20 September.

What moved: Aston Villa 70.47% → 70.53%; unchanged at 70.5% as published

The wage roll-forward comparison is remeasured on the current baseline. The fifteen clubs that roll their filed payroll forward range from −5.6% to 18.9% of the base it is added to, and the other five are built player by player and have no roll-forward. No published figure changes.

• Fourteen of the fifteen rows are unchanged since 20 September, including Tottenham's corrected 14.0%.
• Aston Villa's base is now £219.8m rather than £220.1m, on the staff cost as reported; its roll-forward and share are unchanged.
• Manchester United remains the only club above the range, at 18.9%, and the explanation (the reversal of a pay reduction linked to the Champions League) still matches the figures.
• Coventry City, Hull City, Ipswich Town, Leeds and Sunderland are listed as built player by player and sit outside the comparison.
• The comparison is still a review step rather than an automated gate.

Also moved:Manchester United

The disposal-basis analysis is remeasured on the current baseline of 20 clubs. If the five-year cap also set the book value used for profit on a sale, eight registrations at three clubs would carry £12.0m of extra profit (£9.0m on the four whose contract terms are sourced), and the largest move would be Chelsea's, half a point. No published figure changes.

• Nicolas Jackson is added and is now the largest case, because his 2024 extension to 2033 brings a contract signed before the cut-off within the cap.
• João Félix, Liam Delap, Savinho, Renato Veiga and Mathis Amougou are remeasured on corrected signing, sale and extension dates, and each still qualifies.
• Four registrations (Omari Kellyman, Renato Veiga, Morgan Rogers and Mathis Amougou) rest on estimated contract lengths and are now marked as estimated.
• None of the six clubs added since 20 September has a qualifying sale.
• No club changes compliance state. Chelsea's 87.6% would be 87.1%, and Manchester City and Aston Villa each move by 0.03 points.

Also moved:ChelseaManchester City

Every club must now state its financial year end, and it must agree with its filed accounts. Players who leave carry their cost out of the books by a single, tested route.

• Liverpool’s files stated no year end, so a check fell back silently to 30 June and misread three June 2025 departures against accounts that close on 31 May. Every club is now checked, and a missing or contradicting year end refuses.
• Departed players’ remaining cost leaves the books consistently, including write-offs, at Brentford and Aston Villa.

What moved: Aston Villa 70.4% → 70.5%; Brentford unchanged at 84.5%.

Also moved:LiverpoolBrentfordTottenham

Every club’s departures are now declared from sources, window by window, and reconciled against its ledger in both directions. All 20 clubs were migrated to the new check, and it is enforced: a departure missing on either side refuses the run.

• A declared departure with no matching sale in the ledger refuses; a sale in the ledger missing from the declaration refuses. Dates that differ by more than a week, or fall in a different financial year, refuse.
• Free transfers, releases, retirements and contract expiries are exits, not sales, and are never counted as departures.
• Migrating each club from its sources found missing sales, wrong dates and misclassified exits at several clubs. Each was corrected under its own record before the club was declared.

What moved: Chelsea 103.1% → 101.5%; Fulham 101.3% → 102.0%; Nottingham Forest 99.5% → 99.6% (missing sales, sale dates and the Jota Silva sale); Newcastle 76.7% → 77.1%; Brighton 77.6% → 77.8%; Brentford 84.2% → 84.5%; Everton 73.5% → 73.3%; Manchester United 58.6% → 58.7%. Others unchanged at published precision.

Also moved:ArsenalBournemouthBrentfordBrightonChelseaCoventry CityCrystal PalaceEvertonFulhamHull CityIpswich TownLeedsLiverpoolManchester CityManchester UnitedNewcastleNottingham ForestSunderlandTottenham

Every transfer fee in the series checked against a source that publishes the base and the add-ons separately, and the squad-share comparison rebuilt on a like-for-like basis. Engine code unchanged; the data moved.

• Twenty-two fees were stored at the total rather than the base, across eight clubs of fourteen: Bournemouth 5, Manchester City 4, Chelsea 3, Crystal Palace 3, Newcastle 3, Everton 2, Arsenal 1, Aston Villa 1. Six clubs were clean, and all six were built from detailed window records rather than season summaries.
• The largest proportional case was a deal where 70% of the reported fee was contingent: £3m guaranteed against a £10m reported package.
• One earlier correction had run the wrong way, moving a base to a total against a club announcement of a record fee. Both sides of that transaction now move together.
• A loan fee included inside a reported transfer fee was being capitalised. A loan fee is an expense of the season it is paid.
• The independent per-player wage build was being compared against the wrong base. It is a 2026/27 squad snapshot, while the share here is taken of an FY25 filed cost and then rolled forward, so dividing one by the other gives the share plus the roll-forward. Netting it off reverses two of four conclusions: Arsenal needs no recut, and Tottenham is outside its range on the low side rather than inside it.
• Manchester City’s squad-share range widened from 80 to 88% to 70 to 88%, reaching the independent build without moving the centre onto it, because the two figures allocate the same filed total by different methods and the disagreement bounds the range rather than relocating it.
• The range widening stands. Its evidential basis has since been narrowed: a per-head comparison cited in support of it is no longer treated as valid evidence, because City’s filed football headcount combines players with football staff and is not a player-only denominator.
• Two of this series’ own ledgers disagreed on the same transfer, £48m against £47m. Nothing in the engine compares a purchase row with the counterparty’s disposal row, so a cross-ledger gate is the outstanding build.

What moved: The fee sweep moved eight club ratios by between −1.3 and +0.13 points, with no compliance-state change. Manchester City moved separately from 82.1% to 79.3%, mainly because the squad-share range widened from 80 to 88% to 70 to 88%.

Also moved:ArsenalBournemouthChelseaCrystal PalaceEvertonManchester CityNewcastleTottenham

Two academy registrations recovered. The ledger now carries 147 registrations against 117 census identities with none unresolved.

• Both were at nil acquisition cost, present on three returns and absent from the fourth, one leaving at contract expiry with no fee and no disposal profit.

What moved: no change to the published figure

Rule A.1.29(e) was applied inconsistently across the league. Two structural faults, both in the same provision.

• The round-of-16 reference is a property of the competition rather than the club, and had been entered club by club. Arsenal carried £75m for the Champions League while Manchester City and Aston Villa carried zero for the same competition, turning a three-way maximum into a two-way one.
• The first two amounts count only seasons in the competition qualified for, so a club moving between competitions cannot carry the old one’s money into the new one.

What moved: Aston Villa 74.0% → 70.3%, Manchester City republished at 82.1%

Also moved:Manchester CityArsenal

A departure dated before a squad list the player appears on is wrong, and it had happened at three clubs. Prompted by asking whether an error found at one club also sat in the eleven already published.

• Ninety-two departures carry no disposal row. Most are legitimate releases and expiries; nine had no stated reason at all.
• Six departures mention a loan in their note. Five were genuine loan-then-sale. One was not.

Also moved:Manchester CityChelsea

Published after the missing September 2025 squad list was obtained, which dissolved six apparent recall-and-re-loan chains.

• All three windows close by registration-census delta, each bracketed by its own endpoints rather than by a twelve-month span.
• Swinkels, Özcan, Pavey, Sam Lewis, Edwards and McWilliams had each looked like a recall and re-loan across the February-to-February gap. With the September list between them, every one holds at most one movement per window. They were an artefact of the missing endpoint.
• The source remained marked insufficient for closure and Villa passed anyway, which is the v1v design working: a degraded source is barred from being the closure authority, not from being evidence.
• One registration is still unexplained and recorded as such: signed in January 2026, absent from the February list, present in September.

What moved: 74.1% → 73.9%, and 145 registrations carried against 89 when the census work began

Scope and source authority became separate conditions. A declaration can be genuine, reconciled and cross-checked, and still rest on a class of source already caught omitting a deadline-day disposal.

• The argument for publishing failed on one question: how many agreeing rows is enough? There is no principled threshold.
• A cross-check answers whether a NAMED transaction is right. Completeness is a claim about the POPULATION, and no quantity of the first establishes the second.
• The risk sat in 58 academy and loan movements, the category a season record drops while getting every headline transfer right.
• A dataset that passed under v1u can refuse under v1v on identical inputs, which is precisely what a version string exists to distinguish.

What moved: no published figure moved; Aston Villa withheld pending census closure